Lowest Court Law: Cases And Commentaries
[ fiction - september 11 ]
Lowest Court Law 3
Lowest Court Law: Cases And Commentaries
By Hon. Ronald J Stone
Quality of Life Court (Chief Judge Emeritus, Deceased)
As edited, revised, amended, emended and so forth by Ronald Stone, JD, LLM, PhD,
Dolly L’amour Professor of Jurispudence Emeritus
M Lansky Chair of Law (Central State Campus)
The Law School of the University of Nevada (Tahoe Campus)
Editor’s Note by Ronald Stone (Dolly L’amour Professor of Jurispudence), Editor
The Law School of the University of Nevada (Tahoe Campus)
My late father, Ronald J Stone, had many dreams in his life, almost all dashed. Although in possession of a Masters degree in English Literature from Yale, at no time was he himself, my Dad, anything more than semi-literate, his command of vocabulary atrocious, and of grammar even worse. In short, Dad knew not sh-t from shinola. [i]
Dad was often wont to quote Sir Samuel Johnson, MD, to wit:
A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Samuel Johnson (July 31, 1763)
To quote Dad’s childhood frenemy, “Ronnie ‘The Dork,’” Dorkin, University of Cambridge East, Professor of Law, Jurisprudence, Rhetoric and Home Economics:
“[The treatise, such as it is, is a] unified jurisprudencetialism... in light of which, the Stoneman’s [we called him that when we were kids] intent is irrelevant, reference to it a mere intentional fallacy, his narrative a matter of semi to illiteracy. Stoneman’s treatise is the ONE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY OF LOWEST COURT LAW, PROVEN AS SUCH... STONEY RONCHICK [another kiddy kidding appellation] is to be praised, not dispraised, to be revered, not despised. He has shone blinding light upon the lowest nether regions of the law wherein most lawyers dwell and draw such subsidence as they may. Dad had it right; he has it right; Dad’s the only right one. He has spoke truth. Yes, he did cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. [ii] The theatre was on fire. Universally did Dad save the Universal Theatergoing lawyers, all kids and stripes; the words that did it speak for themselves and do so unto this 15th edition of them. There is no more.
Judge Stone, the “Snakes Judge”
[Yours truly, Ronald J. Stone, Quality of Life Court Administrative Law Judge (as readers of the two preceding Lowest Court excerpts thereon and to, well know), previously heard and decided the legality of the “Tiny” case’s defendant’s possession of “Tiny” the 13 foot boa constrictor. Let us recall that “Tiny” was in the beginning phase of eating Judge Stone whole, Stone’s top-of-head well ensconced in “Tiny’s” mouth and “Tiny” getting further down said head into the forehead area of the eating process, when the Security Guard shot “Tiny” dead. Judge Stone, super courageous as always, not only courageously refused to recuse himself from the “Tiny” case, he declared himself not prejudiced by “Tiny’s” ingesting of him, but Super Judge Stone went on to dismiss the case against the owner of “Tiny” on the grounds that with “Tiny,” having been shot dead, and the slop of its snakeal remains fully cleansed from the judicial hearing room, there no longer existed any evidence whatsoever upon which to find guilt, and, therefore. the courageous Judge Stone now even more courageous than ever, courageously dismissed each and ever charge against the owner of “Tiny.” However, The “Tiny” case did establish Captain Courageous Judge Stone, as a truly Solomonic Administrative Law Judge. Therefore, following the “Tiny” case, Captain Courage Judge Stone was publicly dubbed the “Snakes Judge” and thereafter became by popular demand, the judge who must handle each and every snakes’ case. The case of “King the Cobra” came next . . And after that, there came the case of “Ming,” the 500 pound tiger.]
Case Study #3: Reptiles, Felines and Moi
COBRA BITE PUTS OWNER IN HOSPITAL
New York New
By Mike Claffey
November 29th 1997
A 39-year-old Queens man was lucky to be alive last night after he was bitten by his pet king cobra, one of four poisonous snakes he kept in his apartment, police said.
Charles Sargent was rushed to the snakebite center at Jacobi Medical Center after he suffered a bite on his right pinkie while feeding the 3 1/2-foot-long cobra at 3:45 p.m. yesterday, said Police Officer Cheryl Cox, a department spokeswoman.
"He almost died, but they got the antidote into him in time," said Police Officer Edward Rusch, one of the emergency service cops who removed the four poisonous snakes from the apartment at 133-50 Roosevelt Ave. in Flushing.
The snakes were taken to the ASPCA. The cops carried them out in their tanks and never had to handle them, Rusch said.
Sargent was in critical condition at Jacobi last night. "He was extremely critical when he came in, but he's improving," said a hospital official.
A cobra bite can kill a man within hours.
Sargent also had four nonpoisonous snakes he was allowed to keep. Cops found live mice and chinchillas in cages that he apparently fed the snakes.
Sargent was hit with a [Quality of Life Court] summons for keeping wild animals in a residence, police said.
QUALITY OF LIFE COURT
CITY OF NEW YORK
“KING”, the King Cobra
Killer Snake (Deceased), et al.
TRANSCRIPT(S) OF HEARING(S)
STONE: What the fu-k you got there?
SARGENT: It be my pet, “KING KONG KILLER KORBA” Nicky Named “King”
STONE: Get that motherfu-ke- out of here now!
SARG: It be dephanged, Snakes Judge.
STONE: Fuhgedda bout it. The media done dubbed me “Snakes Judge”. Myself, I say, “Get that mutha fugg-r snake out of here.” I don’t care who says what’s on the News. I am the snakes-scared-of-em-to-sh-t Judge! “GUARD! GUARD!”
GUARD: Whatch choo want, Sweet Meats Judge?
STONE: You see that there; shoot it. KILL IT!
GUARD: Sweetmeats Judgie Dearest: It a snake (mean looking mutha fuck-r, too). You know, I even more a-scared of ‘em than you are. Bye, bye, bye, “Booboo Baby.” [Sic - door slams shut].
SARG: “King” a sweetie, judge. No fangs in him no more, only’s in him now, be’s true love for you, “Snakes Judge.” You the best! You the one! You the “Snakes Judge.” All New York City snakes and snakers knows you. They loves you.
STONE: Get that muthafuck-r out of here.
SARG: See he kissing you now!
STONE: YOW! UGH! [loud screams followed by louder moans],
[At this point, the female gendered guard reenters the administrative law judicial chambers and takes ALL upon herself. She shoots the snake, a killing shot, reptilian blood and guts splattered everywhere [same room as with “Tiny” - but different snake, of course], afourmentioned blood and guts thus qualitatively, albeit not quantitatively, differing from same of “Tiny” the python (deceased).] A profile in courage, aforementioned female guard shouts out, “Emergency! Judge done been bit by snake!” [Over the phone she presents address and like particulars]...
NOW ENTERS QOLC EXEC. DIR. [Name Deleted]
EXEC: What’ve you done now, Stone? The blood! The horror of it all. Stone’s? (God, be mercy filled!) Stone’s blood? Curses! The horror! The horror! Curses!
GUARD: No, Judge, ain’t Stoneman’s. Stoney’s done been bit by King Kong Killer Cobra. It be Kong’s blood and guts you see. I done 911’d it.
EXEC Sh-t! [long pause] Big Deal! Everyone get the fu-k out of here. Now!
[Sounds of scampering feet - room empties - silence]
Fr: [.............], Exec Dir. QOLC
To: ALJ Stone
Subj: You and Snakes
I write to you now not alone as your “boss” but as a matter, too, of humane humanosity, and in the latter vain, let me be perfektly plane: stay away from snakes and snake cases!
QUALITY OF LIFE COURT
CITY OF............., COUNTY OF............, STATE OF............
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vs. Index #
Snake [“King,” deceased], Snake Handler-owner (name withheld)
Decision and Order
Despite requestations, and even orders otherwise, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sees no need to, and therefore, does not, recuse himself from hearing this instant case of snake. The argument that having heard the case previously of ‘Tiny,” the python, precludes the undersigned’s holding a hearing on the case of “King,” the cobra, does not hold the weight of water, the “Tiny” case having been decided with finality - and this present case of “King,” the cobra, being inapposite anyway, because - ultra virus - Tiny (deceased) was a non-poisonous (albeit ravenously hungry) python: (My Lord, did Tiny have a mouth!) snakeal being.
On the other hand (This here!) the question purportedly brought before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge is one of unlawful “animal” possession within the meaning of the law, as to which defendant snake (i.e. “King,” now dead) owner claims that it is unconstitutional to so very, very much vary fines for, in effect, “Tiny” the python as opposed to “King” the cobra. Given that the fine for the former [to repeat, “Tiny,” the python] is fixed (without any possibility of mitigation) at $2,500 and for the poisonously phanged latter, equally fixed at $10,000, no mitigation, there is - thereby and in - presented a real question to this QOLC court. Defendant phrases it this way, “A matter of snakeal poisonosity as being quadruply bad as non-poisonosity. This is wrong. A snake’s a snake for all that.” For purposes of argumentation, we accept the distinction and address it as follows (within contextuality).
Defendant argued that because he dephanged his snake “King,” a cobra, he did not knowingly bring a poisonous snake to this court, knowing same only and exclusively to be a dephanged and - thus, thereby and with - non-venomous snake, and that said snake was presented for purposes of illuminative illustration only, evidence that is to say.
Snake possession is a crime PRO AND PER SE. No more than is intention to bite and kill attributable to such a snake (brainless at all times) is it attributable, or even relevant, to the owner-keeper (this one obviously close to brainless him/itself). As to this very point, the undersigned judge is, of course, a witness. Yours truly was in a coma for ten days, only now back on the job. (Note: said comatosity does not prejudice me, however.) “King” (deceased) was examined both as to snakealness and venomous poisonosity, and it was determined that even though it be dephanged, enough poison and inherent animal reptilian aggression remained within “King” as came pretty near to killing the undersigned. [iii] This was a snake; “King” was. It could bite and did. It could poison and did. Irrelevant is it that alleged dephanging, however noble the intent of same, removed 95% of inherent cobra venom (King’s), the remaining 5% done come close to killing the undersigned. The snake was venomous. Intent is beside the point. The undersigned judge’s being the victim is way, way beside the point (assuming any). Who and whatever the victim, the snake (deceased) was indisputably venomous. To illustrate: a toothless man is still a man. A dephanged (and not even fully so) King Cobra is still “THE KING.”
Thus, the defendant is found guilty of poisonous snake possession: FINE $10,000.
ARGUMENT FOR REHEARING ON GROUNDS THAT KING COBRAS ARE KEPT TO BE RAISED AS FOODSTUFFS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USES AND BUILDING CODES IN GIVEN CASE AREA IS DENIED. THE FURTHER ARGUMENT CLAIMING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NATURAL AND CONSITUTIONAL LAW DUTY TO PRESERVE THE POPULACE’S HEALTH AND SAFETY - SPECIFICALLY, THE STORING OF FOODSTUFFS, IS ALSO DENIED AS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS INSTANT QUALITY OF LIFE COURT, UNEMPOWERED AS WE ARE TO HEAR SUCH QUESTIONS. IN ADDITION, THE SNAKEAL ARGUMENT, OBITER DICTING, AS WE DO, TO THE NON-POISONOUS SNAKE, SUCH AS PYTHON OR BOA CONSTRICTOR, BEING LAWFUL FOR PURPOSES OF RAT CATCHING IN ADDITION TO BEING ANOTHER “TASTY TASTE TREAT,” BEING NOT RAISED AND IRRELEVANT IN ANY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. AS FOR SNAKES POISONOUS, NOT ONLY IS AN ARGUMENT ON THIS BASIS DENIED, THE VERY RAISING OF IT IS IDIOTIC, FOR THERE IS NEITHER PLACE NOR ROLE FOR POISONOUS SNAKES, KING COBRAS ESPECIALLY, IN THIS OUR FAIR CITY. UPHELD IN ALL AND EVEN MORE RESPECTS AND ASPECTS.
New York Times
Dec. 13, 2010
The Cobra Was O.K.; The Duck Tongue Not So Much
I travel a lot for work. I like seeing new places and trying new things, like local foods.
When I was in China, I ate pickled duck tongue with fried cobra. I didn’t care for the duck, but the cobra was OK.
Gary Pomerantz, Executive Vice President of the engineering firm WSP Flack & Kurtz
As told to Joan Raymond
NY zoo closes reptile house after poisonous cobra goes missing
By Associated Press, Sunday, March 27, 5:58 PM
NEW YORK - A poisonous cobra has vanished from... the Bronx Zoo. ...[T]he roughly 20-inch-long Egyptian cobra - a highly venomous species of snake [Asp] - has been unaccounted for since Friday afternoon...
It was recovered yesterday. (“If you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you.” Anon.)
...In this age of cardio friendly carcinogenic cautionary cuisine catering to the super health conscious consumer, no fare beats the venomous snake. Effective though fish oil be in furthering heart health and carcinogenic well-beings, snakeol oil is easily 100 times more potently effective (so long as the snake is poisonous. Also, your average poisonous snake is tasty, cobras and mambas being among the very special tasty taste treats of such and any kind - animal, vegetable, mineral.) So gather ye up your snake of choice, asp, [iiii] rattler, mamba, what have you, and feast on the recipes herein...
Cooked Coil of Cobra (Asp)
Boiled, Basted and Broiled
...Roast Length of Asp: Take one adolescent asp, no more than 20” in length, and with fangs intact. Boil three quarts of water in a four quart copper boiling pan and carefully place the cobra, living, into the water, then cover with lid. (The experienced snakeal snack chef can do this bare handed. Ordinary citizens can find the proper handling equipment online at special cuisine sites: for example “Snakes R Us.Com... “The Snake Snackery. Com”... etc.). Cook until done - but do not overcook. (Again, the experienced chef knows just when the right time is. The ordinary citizen can use special timer-alarms; they are also available from websites like those above cited. Do not test by touch!) Again, making sure the snake is fully cooked, remove the cooked snake from the pot, and from the asp itself remove all fangs and all venom nodules. Marinade the snake body overnight in a mix equal parts vinegar and red wine of your choice, with a dash of cognac spiced with cayenne peppers. Into a silver sauce bowl, place the fangs and venom, then add two tablespoons of black mamba venom. (Once again the same caution: obtain that mamba magic only from an online specialty shop.) The next morning marinade the cobra body in the venomous sauce for six to seven hours. Allow to marinade overnight at room temperature. Then coil the marinaded snake on to a rotisserie spit, rotate and cook over hot mesquite charcoal for 35 minutes or until medium rare. Serves six as an appetizer, four as a main course. Savor the asp! If it was good enough for Cleopatra, it should prove great for the rest of us health and tasty taste treat conscious Americans. Enjoy!...
CASE STUDY #4: From Reptile to Feline: The Role of the Tiger in Lowest Court Law
New York Times
From a Cub to a Menace, and Now a Mystery
By LYDIA POLGREEN and JASON GEORGE
October 06, 2003
His obsession began innocently enough, with the puppies and broken-winged birds every little boy begs to bring home. Over the years, Antoine Yates's taste in animals grew ever more exotic, neighbors said, and his collection came to include reptiles, a monkey or two and, according to one neighbor, even a hyena.
In time, Mr. Yates's most exotic pet, a tiger that he named Ming, grew to more than 400 pounds... Mr. Yates, 37, hard pressed to control the tiger, apparently decamped, too, to a nearby apartment. He continued to feed the tiger by throwing raw chickens through a door opened just narrowly enough to keep a paw the size of a lunch plate from swiping through, neighbors said.... . . His presence... was widely known and did not really alarm anyone...
City officials did not share [t]his view. “Tigers are dangerous animals,” Mayor [M R B] told reporters... [Housing Authority] records indicated that one complaint was received about the smell of urine coming from the apartment. [R]esidents are permitted only one pet, and it must weigh no more than 40 pounds....
[A] five-foot-long alligator-like reptile called a caiman... was also found in the apartment...
ANTOINE YATES INTERVIEW: Oct. 8, 2008 (“Animal Planet” - ‘APL’)
A discussion with the man who kept a tiger in his Harlem apartment...
...Yates: Once he had my leg in his mouth - and you're talking 3, 4, 5 minutes with my leg in his mouth... "How do I get my leg out of his mouth?" ...Him letting go of my leg, I think, is a remarkable thing, because when a big cat grabs a person, it's almost impossible to get your leg, arm, neck, out of his mouth...
...APL: You had an alligator at the same time you had Ming..?
Yates: [T]here was a relationship between me and Al [the alligator]... that people don't even know about.
Animal Planet's 'Fatal Attractions' documentary stars Antoine Yates and ex-pet tiger Ming
BY DAVID HINCKLEY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, October 08, 2010
It's testimony to the quality of this new documentary on owning exotic animals that Antoine Yates almost convinces us he wasn't utterly insane to keep a tiger in his Harlem apartment...
Court of Appeals
State of - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Docket No. - - - - - - /03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This case comes to us as a matter of sovereign right under the - - - - State Constitution: Art VII, §6, which reads: “De novo jurisdiction lies within the State Court of Appeals in all cases of immediate public endangerment.” The Prosecution argues that unless this court exercises this constitutional prerogative, the public risks suffering an exponentially multiplying number of dangerous “pets ‘lurking behind the closed doors of homes and hearths’” within our midst if not on top of us and killing us - and maybe even eating us”). Given that the instant case involves one 500 pounds tiger and one 5 foot alligator / caiman (to all intents and purposes a caiman and an alligator being the same, identical to look at and to be bitten and/or eaten by), along with recent lowest Quality of Life Court cases involving a 13 foot Burmese python (“Tiny”) and a fully grown but not fully dephanged King Cobra (“King”), we agree with the Prosecution and have given this case an immediate hearing, finding more than enough “public endangerment” indeed.
Originally, all cases involving the above denominationated beasts above mentioned came before and were decided by the City’s Quality of Life Court (hereafter “QOLC”). Given such a context, we must, and do, take judicial notice that the QOLC as a matter of governmental civil service status is in fact and truth a collection of “hearing officers (‘HOs’)” who, while members of the Bar, are incapable of practicing “‘real’ law” (See Does 1 through 1,114 vs. - - - - Quality of Life Court, 299 C of A 333, cert. denied US Supt Cty.3d 672.) As is noted in the Does case, the decision-making HOs of any given QOLC within this fair state of ours and/or within a given shining city on the hill is allowed the honorific “‘Administrative Law Judge’ (ALJ)” in the first place solely so that he/she can keep order in their proceedings which would be difficult to impossible to keep if the defendants appearing before them knew what flunkeys HOs are in fact and in truth, in Civil Service ranks falling, as they do, smack in the middle between “toilet bowl cleaner” (Class 5) and “toilet cleaner (Class 7 - so-called ALJS thus being Grade 6 Civil Servants, which is pretty low indeed, being, as it is, only five points above the Class 1 “Pooper Scooper” Civil Service slot ((to which slot no appointment has been made in the ¼ Century pursuant to the stipulation of settlement entered into this court in the class action law suit In Re the Matter of Involuntary Servitude, City Class 1 Civil ServantsCentury)). In Does this court did not demur from the prosecution’s contention that “these HOs are idiots; you got to be an idiot to get to be a HO.” Need we say more - and we do not! We digress.
The QOLC flunkey HO below decided that it had no jurisdiction over the “Ming” tiger case and stayed the “Al” the alligator case until such time as proper” weightal is presented to this court” although Al the alligator had already been shot dead and, therefore, its weight could not be truly weighted due to rigor mortis - not to say the grinding up for dog food of “Al” himself. On the other hand, we do know that Ming weighs in at 500 pounds after a full meal - such a meal consisting of 50 live chickens. Expert testimony has also made patently clear that 50 full size chickens are insufficient nutrition for a 500 pound tiger (“75 are the minimum,” opined Prof. ...... .............., the world’s acknowledged tiger chicken-feed expert, “and when you limit to 50 it’s a known fact that any tiger thus under nourished will eat the nearest baby or toddler and take a big bite out of anyone or anything except an elephant which’ll kill the tiger dead, but fortunately, elephants tend not to make good house pets, at least not in this great country of ours..”)
The Prosecution argues that we cannot run the risk of tigers eating babies within this great state of ours, and we agree. While it is true that the new and recently born tiger eats little more than a ham or tuna salad sandwich, that diminished eats capacity lasts about two days, and, says Prof. ........ .............., as above cited, “the baby and toddler loom as tasty tiger taste treats within six weeks of any tiger’s existence.” While the case law on this subject is limited, we do take note that the statutory law of various States of the Republic of India and of China, among others, make tiger keeping, as pet or otherwise, crimes - in China, as a point of fact, a crime such as merits capital punishment (of the keeper AND the kept).
In this country, of course, we do not condone killing the killer tiger keeper, but we do find that the keeping of such an animal constitutes sufficiently grave a crime qua public threat to public safety that, if need be, killing the tiger is a proper response to tiger keeping., and if we have to kill the keeper to get to and kill the tiger, well, that is force majeure and an act of war besides, so it’s okay to kill obstacles, human or otherwise, to killing the tiger.
We note, too, that the QOLC, below, ruled on procedural grounds only, claiming that solely the given Housing Authority, not any QOLC, can rule on given Housing Authority rules on pet size. We disagre. When a so-called “pet” is over 12 times the size of whatever kind of pet is legal (or when the “pet” is not even a mammel to start with), then statutory law and/or case law have no place in deciding on the “Kill’ Issue” of such an issue (which again, given the low status of QOLC, which once more we take additional judicial notice of, QOLC being lowest of the low beneath low, should never have been bestowed upon an ALJ / HO in the first place), and Natural Law prevails. That is to say (translating from the original Urdu): “Kill the tiger before it eats you and maybe all your family and maybe all your village. And if you don’t watch out, all the tigers in all the land, get together, and they eat everybody.” As we know, “it takes a village to raise a child,” but if we countenance tigers who can, and do, eat not only the child but the whole village, we defeat the very purpose of natural law.
Hence, we overrule the QOLC tiger allowing decision below, and while we do not adopt the Urdu rule of “Kill the tiger,” we do urge that such a rule be very, very heavily favored over petting any given tiger or having your kids playing with it. (By the way, cat and dog lovers, keep those pets from the tiger, too - another Urdu adage.)
Accordingly, the Court (QOLC - no court at all) order below is reversed (and the ALJ / HO deciding it, it should be noted, has been referred for immediate psychiatric evaluation before he is even allowed to set forth in the QOLC premises - forget about his actually hearing another case therein as an ALJ / HO).
When faced with a situation arguably horrific and inarguably sui generis (i.e. being eaten whole by a 12-foot long python and/or fatally poisoned by a king cobra) to what extent, if any, should a judge be held responsible, propriety-wise, for involuntary reactions to same. Are there contrasts here between this and the de novo case of “King,” the cobra (venomous)? To”Tiny” the boa constrictor? One to the other? If so, illustrate. If not, illustrate.
Re. the issue of snakeal poisonality, what factor is played, quantitatively speaking, by degrees of toxicity? Re. the snake that squeezes, is the strength of the squeeze relative to crime, punishment, both or neither?
Does the 5% remaining venom in “King” the cobra make it any less venomous than if it were 100%? 50% ? Any %? Does the fact that the boa constrictor and/or python continues to constrict at full strength even with his/her head shot off effect culpability and/or punishment?
Take a rattlesnake, with its 10% the poisonosity of a king cobra and then a king cobra with its 10% the poisonality of a black mamba and/or finally, a python, a swallower, not possessing any poisonality but definitely possessing Hepatitis C passed-on-through-bite and also a possessing a really, really big, big, big mouth and an overall physiology, esophageal especially, capable of swallowing whole a baby elephant and, for sure, even the biggest human (the former in two to three gulps, the latter in only one) - and discuss if poisonality percentages make one or the other, all members of the snakeal genus, any less members of species snakes, sub-species poisonality? [v]
Is the natural human urge to eat snakes - pythons to cobras (especially the “tastiest of ‘tasty taste treats,’” as their aficionados call them, king cobras, King of All Snakeal Enities - one of those activities beyond the purview of the legal system: such as the imbibing of alcoholic beverages, the smoking of cannabis, the commission of adultery, the crossing state of lines to bed down with one honey or another?
At a certain point of development, Ming was under 40 pounds in weight. Assuming the legality of a “pet” at that weight limit, was the cub legal at that weight? Was he illegal six hours later when he put on 1 pound more?
The Siberian Tiger is the earth’s most endangered species. As a matter of public policy, should we not encourage people like Antoine Yates in the interests of keeping the species going? If so, why? If not, why not?
What is the role of “Al,” the alligator in the “Yates / Ming” case? Would the terms of engagement change if instead of “Al,” Yates was keeping “Tiny,” the python in his apartment?
Or one of the two cobras? Or two. Or the whole menagerie?
The Harlem projects in which Yates had his apartment had a notorious reputation for rat infestation. Once Yates added “Al” to “Ming” to his pet population, all rats in the apartment building were gone.
Snakeal experts opine that if “Tiny” had been added to the mix, all rats in the entire housing development would have vanished, along with roaches and the like, too. However, the same snakeal experts caution that if “King” the cobra were also added, quite a few [“We do not have the specifics to speculate,” commented ..............., the world’s leading snakeal expert.] babies would have also vanished. And toddlers, too.
On the other hand, a growing rat population also endangers infants. And toddlers, too. As a matter of public policy, which matters most: Cobras killing rats who kill babies? Rats who kill babies? Discuss.
How do you feel about killing a tiger? Should this be equivalent to a citizen self defense defense in homicide cases or should you call 911 first?
As is common knowledge, if a lion (in Africa) or a tiger (in India) comes to fight an elephant all by him or herself, the feline mammel is elephant meat. Comment on the prospects of a tiger and a lion teaming up and then taking on a full grown elephant.
Do you like tigers? If so, how much? Lions? Elephants? Kobe beef?
Have you ever eaten tiger meat? Lion meat? Elephant meat? Two or three in combo, like in a special stew?
Have you ever petted a tiger cub? A full grown tiger? Or a full grown lion? If a lion fights a tiger and they’re both the same size, who wins?
Which would you rather have on your side, two lions and one tiger fighting an elephant or two tigers and one lion fighting an elephant?
What social goods, if any, are to be found in fighting elephants?
Four MMA [[Mixed Martial Arts] heavyweight champions against one tiger? One lion? One elephant?
Should MMA fighting be made legal in the State of New York?
If your answer is negative, what if the human elemant is removed, and MMA events are limited to tigers, lions, elephants and the like?
What brand of TV do you own? What size screen. High Def or Blu-ray. Would you require that MMA fights involving humans or animals, some or all, be in BluRay 3D for you to watch them in the first place? Explain.
Case Study: #19
The Washington Post
Too Tall in Manhattan
February 10, 1988
Surprising a city in which builders routinely erect towering skyscrapers, the state's highest court today ordered a developer to dismantle the top 12 stories of a 31-story apartment building.
The... Court... ruled that the $7.2 million Park Avenue high-rise at East 96th Street violates a zoning law setting height limits on one of Manhattan's most affluent thoroughfares.
New York Times
Court Backs... Right To Order Building's Top Razed
By THOMAS J. LUECK
Published: February 10, 1988
[T]he... Court found that the apartment building... vastly exceeds its allowable height because city employees and the develop[er]
RECONSIDERING THE “TOO TALL” CITY BUILDING CASE
By Ronald Stone, PhD, JD
M. Lansky Professor of Law, University of N.E. Central Nevada
LOW COURT ANNALS
...The crux of the matter thus becomes the issue of “How tall is too tall?” Was Ed “Too Tall” Jones, Dallas Cowboys immortal left tackle of days bygone, too tall? Of course not - to be too tall at that position is an impossibility: you tackle good or you don’t, five footer or eight footer as cases may be. “Too Tall” Jones tackled excellently... To contend “Too Tall” Jones qua too tall to tackle is to invoke the language and thought not of jurisprudentialism but of epidermal espitiological etiology; Too Tall played on Defense; he tackled; he was not tackled. To claim otherwise is a tall tale, a story... Similarly and by the same token, when it comes to a “building” in terms of a construct, tallness is one thing, tales and stories another. In this day and age of modern modernist civil engineering architecture, only the limitations of same, engineering AND architecture, address precisely how many stories a construct building can have. Accordingly, we ask, how many should such a construct have? How many must it have?...
...By way of answering out own rhetorical question, consider now the utterly authoritative Oxford English Dictionary’s primary definition of “STORY,” to wit and namely: “1. Each of the stages or portions, one above the other, of which a building consists; a room or set of rooms on one floor or level. Now, next and always, consider that definitionally consistent with these estimable words from the esteemed OED are the first and basic definitional words of humankind, our very selves, namely and to wit, the Holy Bible’s beginning injunction, to wit, namely and locutorily: “In the beginning was the Word.” And what, dear reader, is the construct of stories, any such construct? To which, of course, dear reader, the answer is, again, and namely (and res ipso locutorially, too): “STORY!” When STORY is the infinite all and be all by definition, “tallness” is a minor consideration at most or best. Quality matters above all. A “tall story,” the saying goes, may be of good or bad quality, but it is a “story,” nonetheless. The same holds true for the constructs of stories within a construct building. Tall or not so tall or even short or even too tall, qualitative appropriativeness counts; it is the long, the tall and the short of it! That is to say: there cannot be a “Too Tall” building, only an inappropriately bad building incidentally with too many stories.
...I rest my case...
FRONT FLAP BLURB:
THE ‘MUST HAVE’ LAWBOOK
THE ONLY ONE YOU REALLY NEED!
Law is for lawyers; lawyers are for money. LOWEST COURT LAW: CASES AND CONTROVERSIES is a moneymaker. It goes way, way beyond academic lowest court law research to demonstrate lowest court lawyering in all its splendor. That means Big Buck, and Big Bucks are what it’s all about; we’re all about. 25 editions, 25 years straight: And reader money making has grown from 6 figures yearly to 8 to 9: to alone knows God how many this Silvery Anniversary Year.
No wonder, then, that there are less than a handful of countries where this very text is not published and that more than two-thirds of the world has this text as THE ONLY LAW BOOK within published, and, not least, that even more nation states have lowest court Quality of Life Courts as the only courts they have at all, if at all.
...And, besides: LOWEST COURT LAW: CASES AND COMMENTARIES is a ‘FUN READ.’ Refined, defined and just plain fined over the course of 25 years: you’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll defecate and urinate (given that in these pages are the definitive discussions of the jurisprudence of both public urination and pooper scooping)...
...BUY THIS BOOK!
i See the film, Carl Reiner’s THE JERK, wherein the Steve Martin character gives an action demonstration, on the silvery screen, of the differentiality: sh-t and shinola. [Back]
ii By the way, what kind of schmuck cries “fire” in a crowded theatre in the first place? [Back]
iii Can you believe it? QOLC is fighting workers comp for me. Let them. I sue for damages. [Back]
iiii “ASP:” Cleopatra put it to good use. Now American can, too. [Back]
5 For once and all, let it be settled that “Tiny,” the PYTHON, did not “bite” the undersigned QOLC ALJ, in that “Tiny” barely got her/his/its lips onto the undersigned before being shot to death and consequentially splattered all over the place - and diseases carried by this or any other python are scientifically NOT not venemousal but viral. Given that the undersigned was, in effect, by python kissed and even a little cuddled, there is no prejudicial carryover in considerationation of the poisonality of “King” as opposed to “Tiny.” Whatever its snakeal size, “King’s” bite was/is no laughing matter. It was and is “poison” per and pro se, and the undersigned’s proximately causedation’s ten days of coma prove it. [Back]